[PREV - STATEGIC_BOMBARDMENT] [TOP]
HIROSHIMA
November 25, 2006
It's a nice armchair
exercise in second
guessing and hindsight:
"Was the use of nuclear
weapons against Japan in
World War II justified?"
On the one side, you get the
claim that this is another
item to add to the total of
American guilt: "the only
country to actually use
nuclear weapons".
On the other side, you get the
argument that it ended WWII
sooner, that conventional
war-- conventional bombings, STATEGIC_BOMBARDMENT
starvation due to blockades--
is hardly clean.
The point is often made that *two*
bombs were necessary to convince
Japan to surrender: obviously they
were a recalcitrant, determined
enemy, still in denial about how
badly they were losing.
My own opinion: the United States
should have attempted to demonstrate (More recently, I've heard that the
the bomb to the Japanese, before orignal physicists working on the
escalating to an attack on a city. bomb had the same idea: explode over
open territory first as a demo.
Truman demurred.)
The scenario I'm groping toward
is something like:
week 1: drop a bomb off the coast of japan
100 miles south of Hiroshima There may be
details here
week 2: drop a bomb 50 miles south of Hiroshima that should be
(in the harbor: land on all sides). adjusted: a
forested area
week 3: wait for surrender. Bomb Hiroshima might be better,
itself only if it is not forthcoming. to leave a scar
that can be
inspected.
The reasoning here is that the atomic bomb
was a totally new phenomena at that point,
and it didn't even seem like a human-induced
phenomena. Even if you did believe it was
caused by a new super-weapon, you might guess A suspicion that
that the US wouldn't even have another one was not that far
for years. wrong: bomb-grade
nuclear material
So you need at least two demonstrations that was scare in those
*look* like a human phenomena, threatening an days.
attack on inhabited territory
And consider that
Ideally you would add announced schedules to the Hiroshima and
the scenario, but I presume that that would be Nagisaki bombs
impossible without inviting fighter attacks on were two different
the bombers. designs: they
were probably
Hitting Hiroshima shortly surprised that
after announcing the threat they both worked.
is probably dicey in itself.
One of the
My presumption is that leaving problems with
the time period uncertain my argument
would help. is the
assumption
that the US
But consider the kind of state-of-mind side had more
the US forces would have to possess to than two
conceive and implement a plan like shots in its
this: they were engaged in an all-out arsenal.
war against an aggressive, determined
power. I actually
don't know.
Your own people are dying in this
conflict, even more of *their* people
are dying-- and yet, they don't relent.
They're implacable, fanatic.
They inspire suicidal devotion in
their armed forces.
You would need to look at this
new weapon and immediately see
that the world had changed; you
would need to immediately click
over into a new way of thinking:
The war is already over, we
just need to convince them
this is so.
It's time for compassion;
time to begin thinking
about rebuilding...
That would be expecting a lot.
My guess:
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagisaki
were not in any sense justified --
but they were understandable.
A dream worth working toward:
someday, a government that's
capable of that kind of
thoughtful, restrained response.
Reasonable without being weak.
Strong without being evil.
Wise?
--------
[NEXT - STRATEGY_OF_ALEXANDER]